المعتزلة وأصولهم الخمسة

Hello and greetings to all. The dawn of the second Hijri century witnessed the emergence of the greatest intellectual movement in Islamic history. This movement, or group, laid the foundations for a new intellectual and cultural revolution within the framework of Islamic thought. In reality, it represented the awakening, maturity, fertility, and capacity for innovation and creativity of the Islamic intellect. This group was the Mu'tazila. The Mu'tazila, which first appeared in Basra, carried, as is known, the banner of reason, rationality, and human free will, and many other matters that were controversial at the time. Therefore, if you wish, some researchers and Western Orientalists specifically called them the first free thinkers in Islam, while their opponents called them the people of withdrawal (Mu'tazila). As for them, they called themselves the people of monotheism and justice, or the people of justice and monotheism. Let us say that the Mu'tazila are, in reality, the closest Islamic sects to rational thought. They were rational to a very great extent. They relied on reason, believed in reason, and depended on reason in every matter, big or small. They depended on reason, for example, on reason and logic in interpreting most religious doctrines. They even preferred reason over tradition in some instances. Rather, they made reason an imam, a guide, and a leader. This is what ultimately distinguished them from the other Islamic sects. It is also important to mention that the Mu'tazila, although a single school, a single direction, a single doctrine, had multiple internal trends, internal schools if the expression is correct, different directions, and even differences and divergences among them on many different opinions, matters, and issues. But what united them all were the Five Principles of the Mu'tazila. What united them all were the Five Principles of the Mu'tazila. These Five Principles, let us say, are like the fundamental pillars of Mu'tazili thought and doctrine. They are five principles like fundamental principles upon which all Mu'tazili thought is based and represent the essence of the doctrine for the Mu'tazila. Therefore, no one can become one of the people of Mu'tazila or be a Mu'tazili if they do not fully adhere to them. These Five Principles are: Monotheism, Justice, The Promise and the Threat, The Position Between Two Positions, and Enjoining Good and Forbidding Evil.

Let's elaborate and simplify, but as usual, while keeping it concise as much as possible. The first of the Five Principles is Monotheism, which is a very natural matter and the core of Islamic doctrine. Monotheism means that God is One, with no partner whatsoever, no equal, and no one like Him. God has not begotten, nor has He been begotten. God is One, with no partner whatsoever. For the sake of complete transcendence and monotheism, we will find that the Mu'tazila denied any anthropomorphism or embodiment of God, meaning that God does not resemble any of His creatures whatsoever. God has no body, no hand, no eye, no location, etc. Also, for the sake of pure transcendence and monotheism, the Mu'tazila rejected the idea of attributes separate from God's essence. They said, on the contrary, that God is One in His essence and attributes. They said that attributes are the very essence, and it is not permissible for God to have attributes in addition to His essence, because that could lead to the multiplicity of eternals, which contradicts the essence of pure monotheism. This means that attributes like the attribute of knowledge, or the attribute of power, or the attribute of will, etc. According to the Mu'tazila, these attributes are not things that exist independently and are added to the divine essence, so God becomes knowledgeable through an attribute that is added to His essence, and God becomes powerful through the attribute of power added to His essence. No, the Mu'tazila rejected this statement entirely and in detail. They said that God does not have attributes added to God's essence because the attributes are the very essence, the divine essence itself. So God is not knowledgeable through knowledge, but rather knowledgeable through His essence. He is not powerful through power, but rather powerful through His essence. Therefore, there are no attributes separate from His essence. There are not two things here: God and the attribute, or God and His attributes. So God becomes knowledgeable through knowledge, powerful through power. No, God is knowledgeable through His essence, not needing an added attribute. And so on. In reality, let us say that the Mu'tazila followed this opinion because they feared falling into the trap of the multiplicity of eternals, meaning that there would be several eternal things with God, such as the attribute of knowledge, the attribute of power, and the attribute of will, for example, etc. And because they also wanted to avoid the issue of anthropomorphism, because affirming attributes for God, well, this matter could lead to anthropomorphism, meaning that God here would become like creatures who are also characterized by such attributes, like the attribute of knowledge and power, etc. And for all of this, the Mu'tazila said that there are absolutely no attributes separate from the divine essence. God and His attributes are one thing. The attributes are the very essence, the same essence. God is One in His essence and attributes. This, in their opinion, is absolute monotheism and transcendence of God.

Secondly, Justice. The Mu'tazila believe that God is just and does not wrong anyone whatsoever. Therefore, the Mu'tazila rejected the doctrine of compulsion, that God is the creator of actions and compels people to perform them, then comes and holds them accountable. No, this is not justice in any way according to the Mu'tazila. Man is fully responsible for all his actions. God cannot compel him to commit sins, and then come and punish him for them. No, in the opinion of the Mu'tazila, God has given man intellect, will, and complete freedom. Therefore, man is the creator of his actions. He is the one who performs the action, he is the one who brings the action into existence, he is the one who chooses this action or that with complete freedom. Therefore, all the actions that man undertakes come from his complete freedom, and thus he bears the responsibility for his choices and actions completely and fully. For example, if someone commits murder, for instance, the Mu'tazila believe that this person chose to kill himself. No one compelled him. He is fully responsible for this heinous act. It cannot be said here that God willed him to kill or that God compelled him to commit murder to punish him for it afterwards. No, this statement contradicts God's absolute justice. Thus, the Mu'tazila affirmed complete free will for man. Of course, there is no need to say that this was a revolutionary idea within the framework of Islamic thought at the time. Let us not forget that we are talking about the beginnings here. This idea was revolutionary, it restored some respect to man and himself, etc. It also formed, and still forms, a fundamental point of contention and the essence of the difference between the Mu'tazila and the rest of the Islamic sects.

Thirdly, The Promise and the Threat. This means that God never breaks His promise or His threat. God's promise is true. God does not break His promise or His threat. Whoever adheres to what God has commanded and is obedient, God has promised him paradise, and he will surely enter paradise. And whoever disobeys God, God has promised him hell, and he will surely enter hell. The matter is settled. The matter is settled. This is the meaning that God's promise is true and that God does not break His promise or His threat. God will not forgive anyone who disobeys Him, because He promised sinners hell and punishment. Of course, God will not forgive anyone who disobeys Him unless he repents, a sincere repentance as they say, before his death. Other than that, God will not forgive anyone for free, and intercession or mediation will not benefit in the hereafter. The matter is settled. This is what God has promised, and God will never break His promise. Of course, this principle for the Mu'tazila clashes in some instances with what other Islamic sects believe, who believe in intercession, in the vast divine mercy, and that God may remove punishment, etc. And if you wish to draw a parallel, for example, the Ash'aris, let's see the difference. The Ash'aris believe that God may forgive some sinners in the hereafter even if they did not repent before their death, because God is forgiving and merciful. And there is also the issue of the Prophet's intercession for his Ummah. The Shi'ites also, in a way, believe that the intercession of the Prophet and the Ahl al-Bayt may succeed in God forgiving sinners and disobedient people. Whereas the Mu'tazila do not reject this entirely, because, according to their justification, it first contradicts the concept of divine justice. God promised punishment, and every soul will be recompensed justly for what it did in its worldly life, good for good and evil for evil. Secondly, because God's promise is true, and God will not break His promise or His threat. This is the meaning of the promise and the threat.

Fourthly, The Position Between Two Positions. In reality, this principle was the first spark that led to the emergence of the Mu'tazila sect. The Mu'tazila sect first emerged specifically when Wasil ibn Ata, and his teacher Al-Hasan al-Basri, differed in one of the mosques of Basra, specifically on this issue, the issue of the position between two positions. The disagreement arose between the two men, and Wasil got up and sat with his companions in a corner of the mosque. Then Al-Hasan al-Basri said, "Wasil has withdrawn from us," and from here came the name, and from here the journey began. Important. Regarding the issue of the position between two positions, the Mu'tazila believe that the perpetrator of major sins, known as grave sins, such as murder, theft, adultery, etc., this person, according to the Mu'tazila, is not an infidel, but he is also not a believer. He is not a complete infidel, nor is he a complete believer. Rather, he is in a position between two positions, a position between two positions, meaning between disbelief and faith, as if he is suspended in the middle. Therefore, in this world, this person cannot be called an infidel, but in the hereafter, if he dies without repentance, he will not enter paradise with the believers, but rather will remain in hell, as if he will be treated in the hereafter like the infidels. This is the meaning of the position between two positions: the perpetrator of a grave sin is neither an infidel nor a believer, but rather is in a position between the two positions. For example, let's say there is a Muslim person who killed another person unjustly and aggressively, killing a soul without right. According to the Mu'tazila, this person is not an infidel because he committed a grave sin, because he committed one of the grave sins. He is not an infidel, but on the other hand, he is not a believer, but rather is in a position between the two positions. So he is not treated in this world like infidels are treated. But if he dies without repentance, he will remain in hell. For example, let's look at the difference, for instance, with the Khawarij. They consider this person, even in this world, an infidel, rather an apostate from Islam. Whereas the Ash'aris, on the other hand, rejected the doctrine of the position between two positions and also rejected what the Khawarij went with, that the perpetrator of a grave sin is an infidel in this world and an apostate from Islam. They said, "No, no, no, there is no position between two positions." A person is either a believer or an infidel. There is no third classification. A person is either a believer or an infidel. There is no middle or gray area. They also said that the perpetrator of a grave sin is not an infidel, as the Khawarij say. All that is the case is that this person is a believer, a Muslim, but a sinner, quite simply. He committed a sin. He is not an infidel, nor is he in a middle ground. He is a believer, but a sinner.

Fifthly, Enjoining Good and Forbidding Evil. The Mu'tazila believe that every Muslim has the responsibility of enjoining good and forbidding evil. Every Muslim has the responsibility, for example, in the process of reforming society, in fighting corruption and injustice, even if it requires resorting to force against a tyrannical ruler, for example. Of course, resorting to force or using force if it is possible, because the issue of achieving justice and fighting injustice, whether at the individual, social, or political level, is not a superficial matter for the Mu'tazila, but rather a duty, even if it requires, as we just mentioned, using force against a tyrannical ruler, for example. If there is, let's assume, a tyrannical ruler, the Mu'tazila believe that resisting him is obligatory if he does not respond to gentle persuasion, to good advice, etc. Here, the issue of rebelling against him becomes obligatory, and even the issue of removing him from his position by force becomes obligatory. Enjoining good and forbidding evil does not mean just advice that may or may not be given. No, rather, enjoining good and forbidding evil is a binding religious duty. A binding religious duty. Whereas some other Islamic sects, such as the Hadith scholars, the Salafis, or the Ash'aris, are on the opposite side of the Mu'tazila's opinion. They do not believe that obedience to a Muslim ruler is obligatory, even if he is tyrannical, within certain limits. Therefore, they do not permit rebellion against a Muslim ruler, even if he is tyrannical, unless he commands disbelief. Whereas for the Mu'tazila, the issue of enjoining good and forbidding evil is a binding obligation. You must enjoin good and forbid evil, even by force. Therefore, resistance and whoever does not fully adhere to them will never be among the people of Mu'tazila, or as they call themselves, the people of monotheism and justice. Thank you, and goodbye.